Tripura

West Tripura

CC/13/09

Sri Bidyut Chandra Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S.S. Debnath

06 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 09 of 2013

    Shri Bidyut Chandra Paul,
    S/O- Lt. Birendra Chandra Paul,
    Pratapgarh, (near Jewels Club), Agartala,
    West Tripura.                ............Complainant.

         __________VERSUS_________

1. Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd.
    Represented by its Managing Director,
    Mantri Bari Road,
    Agartala, West Tripura.
    
2. The Branch Manager,
    Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
    Agartala Branch.
          
         3. General Manger, 
            District Industrial Centre. 
            Pt. Nehru Complex,
            Kunjaban, Agartala,
         West Tripura.            .......Opposite parties.
    
                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Sri D. K. Biswas and
                  Advocate. 
                           
For the O.P. No.1& 2    : Sri P.K. Paul,
                  Advocate.
                  
For the O.P. No.3        : Represented by its 
                  authorised representative, 
                  Sri S. Chakraborty,
                  Asst. Director.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 06.05.15

J U D G M E N T
        
        Received back the case on remand from the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala, West Tripura along with a copy of judgment dated 01.07.14 passed in Appeal No- F.A. 58 of 2013 whereby the judgment dated 04.06.13 passed by this Forum has been set aside with a direction to try the case afresh providing opportunities to the parties to file written statements and adduce evidence and also taking into consideration the evidence already on record.

2.        The case of the complainant as gathered from the record is that he being an unemployed approached the O.P. No.3, General Manager, District Industrial Centre with a proposal to start a medicine business. After examination of viability the project submitted by him it was found that an amount of Rs.10 lakhs would be required to start the business. Then the O.P. No.3 recommended to the O.P. No.1, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. to provide him loan to the limit of Rupees 10 lakhs under 'Swavalamban' Scheme without any collateral security. Ultimately the O.P. Bank sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- by  Sanction Memo dated 26.04.12. Before disbursement of the loan amount the O.P. Bank demanded collateral security from the complainant. Accordingly, he mortgaged Immovable property worth Rs.12 lakhs belonging to his father-in-law and kept cash deposit for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-  on lien with the bank. That apart the O.P. Bank also compelled him to purchase bank's share for Rs.24,000/-. He took temporary loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from other sources for purchasing cash certificate. After observing all the formalities, the O.P. Bank released a sum of Rs.9,26,000/- in the month of June, 2012. After repaying the private loan of Rs.3.5 lakhs taken by him to purchase cash certificate, he had left with only Rs.5,76,000/- to start the business. That apart the complainant had to take a building on rent @ Rs.2000/- per month and also paid Rs.2 lakhs towards security deposit of the building. He also spent Rs.2,50,000/- to purchase furniture and fittings for storing/ displaying medicines. After spending the amount under different heads as stated above a paltry amount remained in his hands by which he could not start the business. The O.P. Bank did not release the collateral security of Rs.3.5 lakhs as promised inspite of repeated persuasions. He urged the O.P. Bank to reschedule the loan by paying back the security deposits illegally taken from him but they did not respond to his requests. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The O.Ps No.1, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the O.P. No.2 Branch Manager, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. contested the case by filing a joint written statement. They resisted the claim of the complainant  mainly on the ground that on the recommendation of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, West Tripura (O.P. No.3) the O.P. Bank sanctioned a composite loan of Rs.9,50,000 under 'Swavalamban' Scheme in favour of the complainant to start a medicine business vide Sanction Memo dated 26.04.12. The complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreement vide letter dated 21.05.12. As per terms of the loan agreement, the complainant kept cash certificate worth Rs.3,50,000/- on lien. He was required to repay the loan in 60 EMI @ Rs. 6952/- per month. After receiving the loan amount the complainant did not pay a single installment and thereby he became defaulter. So, the security deposit of Rs.3,50,000/-,which was kept on lien, was adjusted towards outstanding loan amount payable by the complainant. After adjustment a total sum of Rs.6,87,347/- is lying out standing as on 31.01.2014. It is further asserted that the O.P. Bank  provided loan to the complainant as per its own terms and conditions.  Since the District Industries Centre (O.P. No.3) did not give any guarantee  for repayment of the loan sanctioned to the complainant, adequate security had to be obtained by the bank for realisation of the loan amount. It is denied that the O.P. bank was negligent and deficient in any manner in rendering service to the complainant.

4.        The O.P. No.3 District Industries Centre, Agartala, West Tripura filed written objection, stating that there is no need to provide collateral security for loan up to 10.00 lakhs in MSE Sector as per guideline of RBI. Since the loan of the complainant has been sanctioned under 'Swavalamban' scheme under MSE Sector, there was no need to provide collateral security to the Bank.        
5.        The complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents in support of his case:-
    Exhibit 1: 1 Photocopy of Swavalamban Training certificate,
    Exhibit 2: Photocopy of project report,
    Exhibit 3: Photocopy of the letter of the General Manager, District Industries Centre,
    Exhibit 4: Photocopy of letter dated 13.03.12 of the Managing Director, State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and 
    Exhibit 5: Copy of Advocate's Notice dated 05.09.12.
6.        On the other hand, one Sri Somnath Dey, Branch Manager of Tripura State Co-operative Bank, Agartala Branch has examined himself as O.P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit A : Loan Sanction Memo dated 26.04.12,
Exhibit B: Acceptance letter,
Exhibit C: Original FDR dated 17.05.12,
Exhibit D: Bank Statement dated 31.08.13,
Exhibit E: Statement of Accounts for the period from 06.06.12 to 30.08.13,
Exhibit F Series: Correspondences dated 09.07.10, 09.08.10 and 12.04.11 made for extending facilities of credit schemes.  

7.         No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.P. No.3.
        FINDINGS:
8.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
        (i) Whether the loan has been provided to the complainant by the O.P. Bank under 'Swavalamban' Scheme;
        (ii) Whether the O.P. Bank violated the terms and conditions of the 'Swavalamban' Scheme by taking collateral securities from the complainant;
        (iii) Whether the action of the O.P. Bank constitutes negligence and deficiency in service. 
        
9.        We have already heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record, the evidence adduced by the parties and the memoranda of written argument submitted by the complainant and the O.Ps No.1 and 2 meticulously.
        
10.        There is no  manner of dispute that the complainant has applied for a loan under 'Swabalamvan' Scheme which was recommended by the District Industries Centre (O.P.No.3) to start a medicine business. The bank authority sanctioned the term loan of Rs.9,50,000 vide sanction memo dated 26.04.12 (Exhibit A) issued by the Managing Director of Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. in favour of the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that as per terms of loan agreement, the complainant mortgaged immovable property worth Rs.12 lakhs standing in the name of his father-in law and kept lien of TDR valued Rs. 3,50,000 with the O.P. Bank. 

11.            It is the plea of the complainant that the O.P. bank illegally obtained collateral security for release of the loan sanctioned under 'Swavalamban' Scheme in violation of the guidelines of the RBI as the 'Swavalamban' Scheme is a special loan scheme initiated to spread industrial activities among the unemployed persons. It is the further assertion of the complainant that after creation of collateral security such as keeping cash certificate valued Rs.3.50 lakhs on lien and purchasing of bank's shares for Rs.24,000/- he left with a paltry amount in his hands by which he was not in a position to start business  and that was the reason which prevented him from paying the loan installments.
        
12.        The O.P. Bank contradicted the plea of the complainant saying that the term loan for Rs.9.50 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the complainant vide Sanction Memo dated 26.04.12 for medicine business and he received the loan amount accepting all the terms and conditions laid down in the sanction memo. He had no grievance about the nature of the scheme at the time of withdrawal  of the loan amount during the period from 06.06.12 to 02.01.13. He raised question as to the nature of scheme only when he defaulted in making payment of the loan amount. It is alleged that after receiving the loan amount he did not repay a single furthing towards outstanding balnce, for which the TDR valued Rs.3.50 lakhs that was kept on lien against the loan adjusted towards the outstanding loan amount payable to the bank. After adjustment he has the liability to the O.P. Bank to the tune of Rs.6,59,716/- as on 31.08.13. According to the O.P. Bank, the instant case has been filed in order to grab the public money drawn from the O.P. Bank making lame excuse.

13.        As regards extension of facilities of credit scheme under 'Swavalamban',  it is contended by the O.P. Bank  that they made series of correspondences with the Credit Guarantee Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises( in short 'CGTMSE') to enable them to extend the said facilities to the entrepreneurs but the O.P. Bank has not been enlisted for the MSE Sector and hence the guidelines of the RBI is not applicable to them. Thus the O.P. Bank did no illegality asking for adequate collateral security  before disbursement of the loan amount to the complainant as the public money cannot be allowed to be frittered away without security.

14.         Admittedly, the term loan of Rs.9.5 lakhs was sanctioned to the complainant under 'Swavalamban' Scheme and was disbursed to him by the O.P. Bank keeping collateral security of immovable property worth Rs.12 lakhs and cash certificate valued Rs.3.5 lakhs on lien. As per guidelines issued by the RBI on 06.05.10, there has no need to provide collateral security for loan up to 10 lakhs in MSE Sector and the 'Swavalamban' Scheme falls under MSE Sector. Once the O.P. Bank entertained the recommendation of the District Industries Centre (O.P.No.3) for sanction of loan to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs in favour of the complainant, it is obligatory on them to sanction the loan following the guidelines issued by the RBI. It is the plea of the O.P. Bank that Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. has not been enlisted for the MSE Sector, for which the said Bank was not in a position to disburse loan without obtaining collateral security as per guidelines of RBI. In support of contention, the O.P. Bank has proved series of correspondence (Exhibit F Series) made with the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for MSE for extension of facilities of CGTMSE to the O.P. Bank. There is nothing on record to suggest that the O.P.Bank has been enlisted for the MSE Sector. Anyway, before demanding collateral security from the complainant the O.P. Bank ought to have explained the above said situation to the District Industries Centre as well as  the complainant for their inability to disburse loan under 'Swavalabam' scheme without collateral security but nothing of this sort was done. This is certainly a lapse on the part of the O.P. Bank. For the lapse of the bank officials the public money cannot be allowed to be frittered away. Once the loan has been received by the borrower from the Bank under any scheme has to be paid back as per schedule of repayment.

15.        Admittedly, the term loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs was provided to the complainant as per agreement reached between the parties. The complainant in his evidence has admitted that he accepted the terms and conditions laid down in the Loan Sanction Memo dated 26.04.12. On perusal of the Acceptance Letter (Exhibit B) it is found that the complainant accepted all the terms and conditions stipulated in the Sanction Memo dated 26.04.12(Exhibit A) containing the nature of collateral security to be created by the complainant before disbursement of the loan amount. Once the complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, it is a contract which is legally binding between the complainant and the O.P. Bank and it has to be honoured by the parties. The complainant cannot retreat from it. 
         
16.        As it appears, the O.P. Bank demanded collateral securities as per terms of loan agreement and the complainant fulfilled all the requirements of collateral securities without raising any question. If the complainant was not agreeable to receive the loan creating collateral security as demanded by the O.P. Bank, he could have brought this fact to the notice of the loan recommending authority i.e., District Industries Centre for appropriate redress. He ventilated his grievances with regard to creation of collateral securities only when the TDR valued Rs.3.5 lakhs kept on lien against loan amount was adjusted towards the outstanding balance. The complainant could have  pleaded at the earlier stage that he suffered loss on account of the deficiency in service of the O.P. Bank. The borrower cannot dictate the terms about the nature and extent of the security to be created by him. The guidelines of the RBI in the matter of bank credit are mere guidelines and the responsibility for taking decision vests with the bank which has to give the credit eventually. This Forum cannot sit in judgment on the decision of the bank as to what nature of collateral security is to be created by the borrowers.

17.        For all the aforegoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to make out a case that the O.P. Bank was negligent and deficient in rendering service in any manner.

18.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, we make no order as to costs.     
19.               A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.